• 9 Posts
  • 68 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 24th, 2020

help-circle
  • I mean, national weapons proliferation? That’s really not a concern with modern reactor tech, and they should know that. The article ignores the last 50 years of advancement in reactor design to present their arguments, and that really undermines their credibility.

    The problem is: In real life, most nations want weapons potential as an added bonus to their expensive civil nuclear programs. This connects to the “Takes too long to build” and “Expensive” points.

    Nuclear waste is also something, that even though ideas exist in spades, no one seems to have been able to solve. So I wonder: What are the real world hurdles, that have prevented all the talk of “we just need breeder reactors” or something similar, that I have been hearing for many years now, to manifest? Is the tech maybe not as easily implemented as thought? Is the cost/reward ratio too bad, so it would again connect to the expensive point?

    Thing is: I am not fundamentally against Nuclear as part of a power mix, with climate change being the most pressing reality. But I think it’s often presented as better as it is in the real world by people that are highly intelligent and knowledgeable in the basic physics and theoretical engineering parts - but then usually don’t have answers for why, then, even states that don’t have large anti-nuclear movements don’t use it often, in real world circumstances.




  • I think you might be onto something there, still remains in favour of individual capitalists against national capital - and is usually something, the state is supposed to prevent (it’s jobs in capitalism are mostly preventing class conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat just as much as conflict between individual capitalists hurting the economy at large).

    But this now feels like 19th century economics from before understanding the nature of crises, and 19th century “sphere of influence” geopolitics all in one.

    Here’s hoping they end up shooting themselves in the foot by underestimating the consequences of their actions.


  • The Nixon-era Richardson Waiver came about amid a push for more public engagement, with the waiver acting essentially as a workaround to amending the APA’s exemptions. As Richard Brady, the assistant secretary for administration, wrote in the Federal Register at the time, implementing the Richardson Waiver “should result in greater participation by the public in the formulation of this Department’s rules and regulations.”

    “The public benefit from such participation should outweigh any administrative inconvenience or delay which may result from use of the APA procedures in the five exempt categories,” Brady wrote. The waiver also noted that the Health Department should use the “good cause” exception “sparingly.”

    Kennedy’s new policy rescinds the Richardson Waiver entirely. He writes in stark contrast: “The extra-statutory obligations of the Richardson Waiver impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department’s flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.”

    So, just to make this clear, they didn’t just not really implement their fabled transparency, they also walked back on the control mechanisms that were already in place.






  • Wxnzxn@lemmy.mltoFediverse@lemmy.worldFedi-plays live stream
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I unstuck him - I think the script sometimes gets caught up on one command (e.g. “right” in that case) - and it seems providing the same command again helps the script to get unstuck (just giving another single “right” command).

    PS: Not responsible for the script or stream, I just switch into it every now and then when my ADHD brain can’t focus on what it is supposed to do and needs something else for a while before doing what it is supposed to be doing.



  • Wxnzxn@lemmy.mltoFediverse@lemmy.worldPixelfed ebbing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    All things considered, it’s not yet falling off as quickly as I would have expected, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I seem to remember Lemmy had a harder crash after the first reddit exodus, as did mastodon several times, when people fled xitter.


  • Wxnzxn@lemmy.mltoFediverse@lemmy.worldPixelfed ebbing
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    the sole dev of both of these apps doesn’t think he needs any help and refuses to open source them.

    Oof, that sucks. Seems like someone else needs to create an open source alternative app. The platforms themselves are libre software, right? I couldn’t find a lot for loops on that, but Pixelfed itself seems to be.


  • Perfect moment to plug !Peertube@lemmy.world

    Growing steadily, and in my opinion, definitely a way to supplement (still far from replace) YT. There’s actually some neat content on there by now, from just good to fascinatingly bizarre - but almost always very genuine and authentic. Especially when comparing to some years back, it really has become a proper seed for a platform instead of a novel experiment - but more people interacting with the content and/or supporting the creators would be amazing as the next step.









  • Was there a contradiction? Point is, there is no loyalty beyond that. If the favours for Russia were to no longer serve his own, personal interests (or at least, for as long as he believes them to do so, let’s not forget he is also very much fallible), he’d not support them. There is no ideological solidarity, or alliance or higher loyalty is what I was getting at. Just his belief that the world is fundamentally strong people preying on and using the weak, and that he thinks that he can cooperate with Putin on that - conditionally.